Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akdavis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WFGood
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akdavis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WFGood
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by akdavis
Of course, 100% historical accuracy would mean you have zero free action in the game. You would have to simply sit back and watch things as they really happened. But then not being able to have 100% historical accuracy does not mean that historical accuracy is irrelevant.
This just goes to show that discussing anything in terms of absolutes is ultimately pointless and unhelpful.
|
No, I don't agree. You can recreate conditions 100% and have different outcomes based upon the decisions of the participants. You could, for example, recreate the Ward's patrol outside of Pearl on the morning of December 7, 1941 and based upon the timing of your decisions or the decisions themselves, you could miss the one in a million shot that hit the midget submarine. Besides, I think the post is pretty clear in spelling out that we are talking about recreating ports, aircraft, etc 100%, and not making a carbon copy of the war to unfold as a movie. The negative posts take the developers to task for not creating ports authentically or modeling planes completely to detail. To me those things do not affect gameplay. Having the Japanese task force off Midway not there for the battle is a flaw that needs addressing, but the number of ships at the atoll during the course of the war is eye candy and not a factor, which is my entire point.
You cannot recreate things 100%, which is an absolute, but time after time we see posts where the developers are taken to task for just that, not being 100% accurate. |
So he was actually making a statement in absolute terms that was not absolute. Like I said: unhelpful. |
Perhaps you have not completely read the post or are unable to understand it. My point is that you cannot recreate the Pacific Theater 100% accurately, and the negative posts about not finding the game 100% accurate are not only "unhelpful," but they also detract from discussion of more pertinent issues that affect the game. You may be as dismissive as you like, but I wonder who is being "unhelpful" here? This post was about people complaining about the developers not recreating installations, aircraft, ships, and their numbers with 100% fidelity, which I agree is impossible to do. Hence the post asking why people spend so much time posting about the game not being so. Nowhere in any of the posts have I advocated for 100% accuracy or fidelity. I have in fact questioned those that have.  |
You misunderstand me. If you, in fact, believe that 100% historical accuracy is not possible, then the question you posit is disingenious. That is what I am calling unhelpful. You are creating a strawman to attack. No one actually believes that 100% historical accuracy is possible. There are just a good number who lean strongly to the 100% end of the spectrum instead of the 0% end. Those ends are both absolutes that can't practically exist. |
It sounds like we are talking about the same thing from two differnet ends. The question is not disengenious at all. In fact it is not a question at all. It is simply a title which reflects a large number of posts which attack minute historical inaccuracies in areas which do not affect gameplay. You can even think of it as a problem statement for a research project or a hypothesis if you like.
I am all for as much realism as time and budgets allow. In fact, the more realistic the better. What I take exception to is the negative aspersions cast upon the development team because something was not to someone's liking or expectations.
The development team had a deadline to meet, a budget, etc. I may not like it, but I understand that they had to make some choices in order to complete the project on time as well as make it appealing to as many people as possible. I would rather they spent the time making the submarines and shipping as realistic as possible since they occupy the majority of our time. As an example, there are very few people who actually know what Midway Atoll looks/looked like and even fewer who care unfortunately. There is also the question of how to apply that realism. I enjoy manually tracking and attacking targets, but that in itself is not realistic. A submarine's commanding officer did not plot the solution to the target in most cases. (There were a few exceptions in which the XO made the periscope observations, and the CO oversaw the plot.)
The purpose of this post was not (as I stated in the beginning) to attack anyone or to try and halt conversation. What I was taking exception with was the tone of many of the posts. We can have conversations about realism without denigrating the dev team. I just think that people need to keep that in mind. The dev team may very well have been aware that something was historically inaccurate, but may have had to do it that way for reasons unknown to us. They put a lot of hours into this game, and it sounds like it was under less than ideal circumstances. My point was that given those circumstances, they did an excellent job, and it does not drag serve the community or the game well to drag them over the coals over things which are minor in nature.
Semantics aside, we can debate this issue for years, but I think it can be done without calling the dev team lazy, uneducated, uncaring, etc.
04-05-07, 05:47 PM
Threaded Mode